skip through navigation (Access Key = S ) Jump to Accessibility Information (Access Key = 0 ) Jump to Home Page (Access Key = 1 ) Jump to News (Access Key = 2 ) Jump to Site Map (Access Key = 3 ) Jump to Search Box (Access Key = 4 ) Jump to Frequently Asked Questions (Access Key = 5 ) Jump to Help Page (Access Key = 6 ) Jump to Complaints (Access Key = 7 ) Jump to Terms and Conditions (Access Key = 8 ) Jump to Feedback Form (Access Key = 9 ) Jump to content (Access Key = N ) Jump to Business and Advice (Access Key = B ) Jump to Leisure and Culture (Access Key = C ) Jump to Council and Community Diary (Access Key = M ) Jump to Environment and Planning (Access Key = V ) Jump to Community and Learning (Access Key = G ) Jump to Do It Online (Access Key = O ) Jump to Children and Young People (Access Key = P ) Jump to A to Z Services (Access Key = T ) Jump to Your Council (Access Key = Y ) Jump to A too Z site Index (Access Key = Z ) jump to Read Speaker functionality (Access Key = L) Jump to Printer Friendly Version (Access Key = F) Jump to Text Only (Access Key = J) Jump to Change Contrast (Access Key = K)
What the papers didn't say
Grass cutting

The decision not to cut the grass on some sites around the Borough was not one that was taken lightly. In December 2006 the Council carried out research to help us improve our public satisfaction levels of a number of services including the maintenance of parks and open spaces. Residents identified a number of issues that they thought would help including less grass cutting, open spaces left to grow wild, reduction of formal planting areas and the sale of land for housing.

Prior to the new grounds maintenance contract being drawn up these suggestions and the need to make financial cost savings were addressed and a revised specification was agreed by staff and councillors. This included increased dog and litter bin emptying, the non-closure of pedestrian gates within the parks and reduced cutting regimes. The logic for selecting areas not to be cut was based on the views of staff that the sites chosen would have less impact on the wider community because they are not highly used in comparison to other parks and open spaces around the Borough. We do however acknowledge the fact that it will have a visual impact for some residents. To alleviate some of the concerns it was agreed that we would cut paths through some of the areas and the cabinet member for the Environment will be visiting a number of sites regularly to ensure that other aspects of the grounds maintenance contract are being undertaking, i.e. litter removal.

Partnership Action Day - Stanwell

There has been a lot of misleading media coverage of the recent *Partnership Action Day (PAD) held in Stanwell on 17 February. Particularly the allegations that ‘slap up’ buffets were provided for councillors during the day.

The facts are as follows: the PAD runs from 10am to 5pm and involves a wide variety of organisations involved in community safety.

A buffet is provided for those people who are not at their usual place of work and consists of crisps and sandwiches. It is paid for out of the Spelthorne Safer Stronger Partnership budget. It would be unreasonable to expect people to go to a supermarket or café as it would waste time that could otherwise be spent talking to people and exchanging information. It is also not practical to be able to keep food that people might bring – fridges would need to be provided.

The only councillors present were local Stanwell councillors who were invited and came along to offer support.

*Partnership Action Days offer the public the chance to see how the various organisations involved in community safety work together to tackle safety issues like crime and antisocial behaviour. The public can speak to organisations like Surrey Police, Fire Service, parking enforcement staff, Primary Care Trust and St John’s Ambulance.  An important element of the day is the construction bus which offers young people the chance to have a go at trade skills such as bricklaying, plumbing and carpentry.

Bridge Street car park

There has been much coverage in the papers of late about the plans for the Bridge Street car park site in Staines, owned by Spelthorne Council.

A lot of the coverage has been wide of the mark or supposition and sometimes both so the Council would like to set the record straight by giving the following factual information.

The Council exchanged a conditional contract with Taylor Wimpey in December 2006 on the basis that a number of actions would be undertaken within a certain time. The most important of these actions was to achieve planning consent – also within a certain timeframe. The developer was slow to submit a planning application but planning consent now exists, subject to a legal agreement.

During the intervening period, land values have plummeted, construction has also taken a nose dive and, as a consequence, Taylor Wimpey told the Council that it could not pay the agreed price for Bridge Street. Despite negotiations continuing and Taylor Wimpey trying to drive down the price, the Council considers that the original agreement is at an end.

The Local Development Framework identifies Bridge Street as a site suitable for housing.